Yuyutsu (Sat 23 July),

You stated: <<We are all related with God, it's impossible otherwise, but only some of us actively and consciously seek to come closer to Him. 'Religion' is the path that we take to approach God: if the path that we are on does not lead to God, then it cannot be called a "religion" - no matter how many dictionaries say otherwise.>>

That is not my Christian perspective that we are all related to God. We all are made in ‘the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) but we are separated from God because of our sin: ‘But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear’ (Isaiah 59:2).

As for the word for ‘religion’ in James 1:26-27, I am well aware of what the Greek NT says as I read and teach NT Greek.

James 1:26 begins, ‘If anyone thinks he is religious’. It uses the adjective, threskos [e=eta], religious. The problem with this word is that this is the only time in the entire NT where the word is used as an adjective. We can’t compare other uses in the Bible because there are none. But when we go outside of the Bible to see its use in Greek, we find some answers.

James 1:26 begins, ‘If anyone thinks he is religious’. It uses the adjective, threskos [e=eta], religious. The problem with this word is that this is the only time in the entire NT where the word is used as an adjective. We can’t compare other uses in the Bible because there are none. But when we go outside of the Bible to see its use in secular Greek, we find some answers.

In the next verse, James 1:27, it speaks about ‘religion that is pure and undefiled before God’. What is pure and undefiled? So ‘religion’ can be either worthless or worthy.

• In v. 27 the noun - threskeia [first e=eta] - related to the adjective from verse 26 is used. We find the noun in …
(continued)

Spencer

Yuyutsu (Sat 23 July),
(continued)

We also find the noun in …

• In v. 27 the noun - threskeia [first e=eta]- related to the adjective from verse 26 is used. We also find the noun in …
• Acts 26:5 where Paul states that ‘according to the strictest party of our religion I lived as a Pharisee’ (ESV). What factors caused the Pharisees to be proud about their religion? The Pharisees were very influential at the time of Jesus and Paul. Pharisees meant ‘the separated ones, separatists’. John 9:16 helps us to see what kind of religion they were promoting, ‘Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them’. What did they require Jesus to do on the Sabbath? ‘There were 39 prohibited groups of activities on the sabbath’ for the Pharisees and they stressed the law that ‘contained 613 commandments (248 positive, 365 negative’. So what kind of religion is it from Acts 26:5 that Paul used to practise? It was external religion and that is the negative kind that James is talking about. It’s religion by external appearances.

Thayer's Greek lexicon gives the meaning of threskeia [first e=eta] as 'primarily fear of the gods; religious worship, especially external, that which consists in ceremonies', while the noun, threskos [e=eta] refers to 'fearing or worshipping God; religious (apparently from trew; to tremble; hence properly trembling, fearful)'.[3] So it is possible to perform external religious ceremonies from a correct motive. But I’m jumping ahead of myself.

There’s one other verse that uses this word for ‘religion’ in the NT:
• Colossians 2:18 states, ‘Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels’. There’s that word again, threskeia [first e=eta], ‘worship’. Here, worship of angels, which is talking about worthless religion.

James 1:26-27 uses 'religious' and 'religion' (adjective and noun) from the same root. James is careful to show the difference between worthy and worthless religion.

Spencer

Spencer,

With respect, you are being obtuse.

You ask, "In which post did I make that statement?", that: ['...the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity"'.]

Well, in your answer's to my specific criticism of your claim on the "accurate content of Christianity".

Here: "Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 12:17:48 PM"

Spencer: "Your presuppositional rationalism and secularism seem to be standing in the way of permitting the historical method to be used to assess details about the historical Jesus."

Hmm. "historical method" and historical Jesus" - seems pretty clear to me! Then you go further and claim the historicity of the NT.

Spencer: "I have already cited Australian historian, Dr Paul W Barnett’s, views to refute your perceptions here (“Jesus and the Logic of History” 1997). Barnett has refuted your irrational reasoning regarding the NT in his other publications"
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 July 2016 12:23:06 PM

In same post, you accuse me of "providing not one piece of evidence to show how documents are found to be historically reliable or unreliable".

So along with confusing the burden of proof, you clearly based your original cliam on the historicy of Jesus and then extended it to the full NT by citing Barnett's books.

Rather than trying to wriggle out of making the claim why dont you clearly articulate your argument. As I've suggested, the claim is so preposterous you'd be better advised to settle for something more modest.

Spencer

I didnt notice your post: OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 2:09:38 PM

You say:

"You don’t like the idea of secularism being identified as a religion. However, it’s way too late to try to convince me otherwise.
Back as far as the late 1930s, there were writers identifying ‘secular religion’"

You then betwray a fundamental confusion by going on to provide some opinions on poential secular religions from Wikipedia: communism, Sport, psychology etc.

That doesn't demonstrate "Secular- ISM" is a religion! Straw man.

Secular religions (even if granted) are not the same thing as Secularism. Please try to debate the argument rather than a straw man.

In addition, these contrived religious apoligist arguments that everything is a religion force Christians to admit to practising multiple religions.

They also mean that every belief system is a religion. This denies religion any distinction in meaning. If religion is really no different from politics or sport or pyschology then what distinguishes it?

RationalRazor,

It is you who stated that this information came from me: 'the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity"'. I do not believe that; I did not state that; you have invented that about my views.

You are the one being obtuse by inventing something I did not say. So you have created a straw man fallacy about my views by creating a view I do not promote.

We have no basis to continue a rational conversation when you use the fallacious reasoning of a straw man fallacy in regard to what I wrote.

Spencer

Dear Spencer,

«That is not my Christian perspective that we are all related to God. We all are made in ‘the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) but we are separated from God because of our sin»

How could anything stand independently even one moment without God?
Yes, we currently seem to be separated from God by our sin, but this separation is only temporary. Different religions offer different paths and methods to remove our state of sin: while you may doubt the authenticity of this path or another, I don't think that you or any serious person, nor even its own followers, includes secularism and its variants as competent paths that can help anyone to wash away their sins.

Clearly there are forms of worship and rituals which do not lead to God. Moreover, the same external rituals may or may not lead to God, depending on the practitioner's spirit and intention. This is indeed the subject of chapter 17 of the Bhagavad-Gita, ending with:

28.
Whatever is done without faith;
Whether it is sacrifice, charity, austerity,
Or any other act; is called Asat.
It has no value here or hereafter, O Arjuna.

http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/gita-chapter17.html

Religion-by-external-appearances is not religion, but a semblance of religion - it cannot bind its practitioner to God just like Fata Morgana cannot assuage one's thirst.